Jeff Morley Censoring Posts to Protect DiEugenio?

[John McAdams]

Jimmy D., on Jeff's site, has been doing his "all the evidence is
corrept and everything is faked" routine.

I've responded to him, but my posts have not appeared.

You can see both Jim's comments and my posts "awaiting moderation"
here:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ngarchive/morley2.htm

While I can see my posts, nobody else who visits Jeff's site can.

Is Jeff protecting Jim DiEugenio?

When the posts didn't appear the first time, I reposed them, since
some posts on Jeff's site seem to merely fall between the cracks. But
they still haven't appeared.

I contacted Peter Voskamp, who has been the moderator about this, and
got this response:

<Quote on>

Hi John,
Best give Jeff a shout at:
Edi...@jfkfacts.org
-----Original Message-----
From: "McAdams, John"
Sent: May 4, 2014 4:48 PM
To: Peter Voskamp
Subject: RE: Comment of Mine



Hi, Peter,

Several posts of mine on Oswald's obtaining the rifle were not
reposted in the last round of reposting.

I've resubmitted them, since I know that things fall through the
cracks sometimes.

I think you'll find them acceptable.

John

<end quote>

So is Peter no longer the moderator? Has Jeff decided I'm not allowed
to post, or perhaps merely not challenge DiEugenio?

Jeff has not responded to my e-mail earlier today.

.John

--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Lanny]

For a guy who supposedly doesn't "have a theory" on the assassination and
is interested in only that which we know as fact, Morley sure seems to
carpool with the CTs and speculators an awful lot.

[Robert Harris]

I'll say this much on your behalf, John. You are fairer than Morley when
it comes to permitting dissent, but only by a small margin.

You have restricted me from pointing out when you and others evade
important challenges and questions.

You have demanded that I be more "polite" with some of your friends than
they are with me.

You have forbade me from saying that some of your claims are "false".

It is outrageous that you make ridiculous statements such as your claim
that I have been repeatedly refuted, and then forbid me from challenging
you to justify your accusation.

I SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO REPEAT THAT CHALLENGE UNTIL YOU SUPPORT YOUR
CLAIM OR RESCIND IT.

The 285 argument is a deal breaker. The question of conspiracy hangs in
the balance. You should be doing everything in your power to resolve it
rather than trying to silence challenges.

It doesn't help much if you permit more dissent than Morley, but then
stifle the debate which refutes the SA theory.





Robert Harris

[Bill Clarke]

In article <5367f1bc....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...

I can't answer your question but they posted my criticism of some crap
DiEugenio posted on John Newman's book about Kennedy withdrawing from
Vietnam. I wondered if they would and was surprised when they did.

I suspect that you sing the wrong song and sing it too often for them.
For the life of me I can't understand why they would omit any dissenting
views. That is much akin to a military leader surrounding himself with
nothing but "yes" men. It is an invitation for disaster and brings to mind
MacArthur in Korea.

Bill Clarke

[John McAdams]

On 5 May 2014 17:29:15 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>I'll say this much on your behalf, John. You are fairer than Morley when
>it comes to permitting dissent, but only by a small margin.
>
>You have restricted me from pointing out when you and others evade
>important challenges and questions.
>

I have said you could "bump" a request for a response once, and no
more.

You are not allowed to endlessly harass and bully people, damanding
answers, especially when you will not *accept* their answers.

As for "a response:" the only response you will consider "a
response," Bob, is people agreeing with you.

You have never seemed to catch on, in all your years here, that you
can't demand that people agree with you.

>You have demanded that I be more "polite" with some of your friends than
>they are with me.
>
>You have forbade me from saying that some of your claims are "false".
>

You can't call other people liars, Bob.

You have actually tried to post claims that people who disagree with
you here really *know* you are right, but are lying.

That's not allowed.

>It is outrageous that you make ridiculous statements such as your claim
>that I have been repeatedly refuted, and then forbid me from challenging
>you to justify your accusation.
>

You have indeed been repeatedly refuted.

The fact that you won't admit it does not give you the right to try to
spam the group, and harass and badger people trying to get them to
give you the answer you want.

>I SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO REPEAT THAT CHALLENGE UNTIL YOU SUPPORT YOUR
>CLAIM OR RESCIND IT.
>

That's called spam. You can't spam your way into winning an argument.

Every poster has the right to decide not to engaged with you.

Virtually all of us have done so repeatedly, but usually don't want to
waste our time.

>The 285 argument is a deal breaker. The question of conspiracy hangs in
>the balance. You should be doing everything in your power to resolve it
>rather than trying to silence challenges.
>
>It doesn't help much if you permit more dissent than Morley, but then
>stifle the debate which refutes the SA theory.
>

You have always been free to make your substantive arguments.

You are not free to spam the groun with repeated demands that people
agree with you.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

In order to make their conspiracy theory plausible - if not to others than
to themselves - they have to create this mythical JFK who was going to
radically change the status quo. And that's why the national security
state or the military industrial complex or whatever entity they think of
had to strike him down. He was a threat to their power and position.

It's all, well, let's say implausible. JFK was a pragmatic politician on
domestic issues but a strong anti-communist hawk on foreign policy. He may
- may - have been changing those last few months but he wasn't changing
that much.

As McGeorge Bundy said (I'm sure you're familiar with him), withdrawing
from Vietnam was never discussed. RFK said something similar.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

That does seem to be happening a lot over there. He can exercise some
editorial discretion.

This "I'm in favor of asking questions" or "I'm for open government"
response by him seems a bit, well, contrived.

There are some questions that either have been answered (and answered and
answered) or aren't worthy of discussion. Not all questions are legitimate
or are asked in good faith.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <c332d9a4-24b9-4e2c...@googlegroups.com>,
stevemg...@yahoo.com says...

>
>On Monday, May 5, 2014 4:29:46 PM UTC-5, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> In article <5367f1bc....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...

>>=20
>> >
>>=20

>> >Jimmy D., on Jeff's site, has been doing his "all the evidence is

>>=20

>> >corrept and everything is faked" routine.

>>=20
>> >
>>=20

>> >I've responded to him, but my posts have not appeared.

>>=20
>> >
>>=20

>> >You can see both Jim's comments and my posts "awaiting moderation"

>>=20
>> >here:
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ngarchive/morley2.htm
>>=20
>> >
>>=20

>> >While I can see my posts, nobody else who visits Jeff's site can.

>>=20
>> >
>>=20

>> >Is Jeff protecting Jim DiEugenio?

>>=20
>> >
>>=20

>> >When the posts didn't appear the first time, I reposed them, since

>>=20

>> >some posts on Jeff's site seem to merely fall between the cracks. But

>>=20

>> >they still haven't appeared.

>>=20
>> >
>>=20

>> >I contacted Peter Voskamp, who has been the moderator about this, and

>>=20
>> >got this response:
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> ><Quote on>
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> >Hi John,
>>=20
>> >Best give Jeff a shout at:=20
>>=20
>> >Edi...@jfkfacts.org
>>=20
>> >-----Original Message-----=20
>>=20
>> >From: "McAdams, John"=20
>>=20
>> >Sent: May 4, 2014 4:48 PM=20
>>=20
>> >To: Peter Voskamp=20
>>=20
>> >Subject: RE: Comment of Mine=20
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> >=20
>>=20
>> >Hi, Peter,
>>=20
>> >=20
>>=20

>> >Several posts of mine on Oswald's obtaining the rifle were not

>>=20

>> >reposted in the last round of reposting.

>>=20
>> >=20
>>=20

>> >I've resubmitted them, since I know that things fall through the

>>=20
>> >cracks sometimes.
>>=20
>> >=20
>>=20

>> >I think you'll find them acceptable.

>>=20
>> >=20
>>=20
>> >John
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> ><end quote>
>>=20
>> >
>>=20

>> >So is Peter no longer the moderator? Has Jeff decided I'm not allowed

>>=20

>> >to post, or perhaps merely not challenge DiEugenio?

>>=20
>> >
>>=20

>> >Jeff has not responded to my e-mail earlier today.

>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> >.John
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> I can't answer your question but they posted my criticism of some crap=20
>>=20
>> DiEugenio posted on John Newman's book about Kennedy withdrawing from=20
>>=20

>> Vietnam. I wondered if they would and was surprised when they did.

>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> I suspect that you sing the wrong song and sing it too often for them. =
>=20
>>=20
>> For the life of me I can't understand why they would omit any dissenting=
>=20
>>=20
>> views. That is much akin to a military leader surrounding himself with=
>=20
>>=20
>> nothing but "yes" men. It is an invitation for disaster and brings to min=
>d=20
>>=20
>> MacArthur in Korea.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20

>> Bill Clarke
>
>In order to make their conspiracy theory plausible - if not to others than
>to themselves - they have to create this mythical JFK who was going to
>radically change the status quo. And that's why the national security
>state or the military industrial complex or whatever entity they think of
>had to strike him down. He was a threat to their power and position.
>
>It's all, well, let's say implausible. JFK was a pragmatic politician on
>domestic issues but a strong anti-communist hawk on foreign policy. He may
>- may - have been changing those last few months but he wasn't changing
>that much.
>
>As McGeorge Bundy said (I'm sure you're familiar with him), withdrawing
>from Vietnam was never discussed. RFK said something similar.

Well said. Mind if I use some of thin in future engagements?

Bill Clarke

[John McAdams]

Well now he *has* responded:

<Quote on>

I'm holding your comments because I've gotten so many complaints about
your style, John

As you know, I have always rebuffed the complaints for the sake of the
widest possible debate.

But I hear from people that your style is intentionally destructive,
seeking to undermine debate not encourage it.

I don't agree with these complaints but I want to know what you think
of them.

Best,
jeff

<end quote>

I responded as follows:

<quote on>

"My style" is just an excuse to object to the actual content of what I
post.

Just what in the world does "intentionally destructive" mean? That I
set out to "destroy" the arguments I think are wrong?

Of course, but that's what happens in debate.

Nothing about the posts you are holding should be considered
objectionable.

And if you are going to allow DiEugenio to post claims about how the
evidence against Oswald is bogus, it's not fair to allow him to make
those arguments and then not allow them to be rebutted.

How can it "undermine debate" to allow both sides to be heard?

.John

<end quote>

As of this writing, my comments are still not visible.

You can see what I see when I look at the blog here:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ngarchive/morley2.htm


. . . which included the posts Jeff censored.

As of right now, if you go here:

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/from-the-inbox-incorrect-commenters-and-911-theories/

. . . you will not see the posts where I responded to DiEugenio.

Jeff, I'm afraid, is more and more getting assimiliated into the buff
subculture.

This reminds one of another stupid stunt that Jeff pulled:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/KmqSUR199Bc/q-Wwv18lTQwJ

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[David Von Pein]

All of my posts have been getting through at Morley's site. And I've
probably been a little more antagonistic toward Jim "LHO Shot Nobody In
1963" DiEugenio than John Mac has been. Go figure.

[Anthony Marsh]

So you want to assist in spreading disinformation.
Maybe he doesn't know about the McNamara-Taylor report, but you do.

> Bill Clarke
>
>

[Mike]

The truth will not be discovered at his site so do not worry about it.

Rather, you should work on improving your site by bringing it into the
modern world and not allowing so much spam.

The most important quality that your site has is you do allow free speech.

But you need to create a modern forum where graphics can be displayed
and you need to rebrand your site as neutral and not favoring one side
or the other.

If you do those things you will have the best site on the internet and
the one where that has the best chance of discovering the truth of what
happened that day.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Bill, sure. Just make sure you roll it up and hit Tony "the yapping
poodle" Marsh over the snout with it.

As you know, JFK endorsed, called for really, the removal of Diem because
JFK believed that a more popular and effective leader would follow. One
that was less corrupt, less repressive, and someone that would be able to
rally the South Vietnamese people.

In fact, the opposite occurred. Diem was the "best and brightest" they had
at the time and the South Vietnamese people viewed his successors as
puppets for the US. The South Vietnamese government got less support and
not more.

So, JFK (as LBJ did) would have to deal with an entirely different
situation, one that made his plans to turn the war over to Saigon
worthless.

What was he going to do?

Marsh cites material from 1963 as if events didn't change things.

JFK was simply not going to abandon South Vietnam.

[BT George]

That's why it is almost certainly NOT about:

1) DiEugenio - For as you noted you have been an even harsher critic.

2) John's style - For you're just as direct and (I'm sure you would agree)
tend to be even more strident and unsparing in you criticism of CT's

3) John's arguments - For what's the substantive difference?

That leaves only one thing - John's longer tenure in this little fight and
relatively higher public profile (proffessor, author, JFK Assassination
talking head) have pretty much made him "Public Enemy #1" in the CT world.
It seems that for many of them, they simply go nuts like Pavlov's dog at
the mere mention of his name.

That's my 2 cents anyway.

BT George

[Anthony Marsh]

He could do that easily and he has done it for his buddies. But he won't
do it for the conspiracy believers because he can't censor a GIF. Or
rather he doesn't know HOW to censor a GIF.

> If you do those things you will have the best site on the internet and
> the one where that has the best chance of discovering the truth of what
> happened that day.
>

He is not interested in discovering the truth. He is here to cover up
the truth.

[John McAdams]

On 6 May 2014 17:44:55 -0400, Anthony Marsh

I keep telling you you can can post graphics. Just attach them to a
post.

You keep ignorning what I said, and keep insisting it's not possible.

Are you so entranced with believing what you believe that you don't
want to know the truth?

Try it.

Make a post with a graphic image attached.

But that's dangerous for you, isn't it? You might learn you have been
wrong all these years.

[Lanny]

With all this nonsense about "tone" it's starting to sound like Morley is
hypervigilant about not alienating his financial base. I don't know how
much it costs to maintain a website (especially if you're having others
handle the technical nuts and bolts), but Jeff has made fundraising
appeals on several instances.

Tone. What a freaking joke.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <94a0835b-2129-466e...@googlegroups.com>,

Thanks, I'll use it wisely! I've read that ole Ho said he couldn't
believe the Americans could be so stupid when he heard Diem had been
removed. I guess Ho should know.

I might could live with Marsh citing material from 1963 but it is his
MIS-CITING that appalls me. I've sent an example of his false statements
which hasn't been posted yet.

I agree, I see no evidence that JFK was going to abandon South Vietnam.

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

And JFK recorded himself regretting that decision. He wanted to get out of
Vietnam as quickly as possible. So far you have never presented any
evidence to contradict my points. All you can do is make personal insults.
You have never posted any documents and you never will.

> In fact, the opposite occurred. Diem was the "best and brightest" they had
> at the time and the South Vietnamese people viewed his successors as
> puppets for the US. The South Vietnamese government got less support and
> not more.
>

Diem was corrupt and trying to make a secret deal with the Communists.

> So, JFK (as LBJ did) would have to deal with an entirely different
> situation, one that made his plans to turn the war over to Saigon
> worthless.
>
> What was he going to do?
>
> Marsh cites material from 1963 as if events didn't change things.
>

Sure. JFK's assassination changed everything.
They replaced a Dove with a Hawk.

> JFK was simply not going to abandon South Vietnam.
>
>

Read the damn documents.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/6/2014 5:48 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 6 May 2014 17:44:55 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/6/2014 1:49 PM, Mike wrote:
>>> On 5/6/2014 9:09 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 05 May 2014 20:24:08 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
>>>> McAdams) wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> But you need to create a modern forum where graphics can be displayed
>>> and you need to rebrand your site as neutral and not favoring one side
>>> or the other.
>>>
>>
>> He could do that easily and he has done it for his buddies. But he won't
>> do it for the conspiracy believers because he can't censor a GIF. Or
>> rather he doesn't know HOW to censor a GIF.
>>
>
> I keep telling you you can can post graphics. Just attach them to a
> post.
>

But only for your buddies. Not for conspiracy believers.

> You keep ignorning what I said, and keep insisting it's not possible.
>

I never said it was impossible. Other newsgroups have done it and we
used to do it here.

[Anthony Marsh]

Once again you gloss over the fact that Ho was once OUR guy. He saw first
hand how stupid the Americans can be when they turned their backs on him
and made him into an enemy.

> I might could live with Marsh citing material from 1963 but it is his
> MIS-CITING that appalls me. I've sent an example of his false statements
> which hasn't been posted yet.
>

Nope.

> I agree, I see no evidence that JFK was going to abandon South Vietnam.
>

That's one way to win an argument. Just change the terms and change the
claim. So did Obama "abandon" Iraq? Did Obama "abandon" Afghanistan? Did
the US "abandon" England after WWII by bringing our troops home? Did the
US "abandon" France after WWII by bringing our troops home? Do you think
we should still keep troops in Iwo Jima? Antarctica? The Moon? Jupiter?

> Bill Clarke
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/6/2014 5:48 PM, John McAdams wrote:

> On 6 May 2014 17:44:55 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/6/2014 1:49 PM, Mike wrote:
>>> On 5/6/2014 9:09 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 05 May 2014 20:24:08 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
>>>> McAdams) wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> But you need to create a modern forum where graphics can be displayed
>>> and you need to rebrand your site as neutral and not favoring one side
>>> or the other.
>>>
>>
>> He could do that easily and he has done it for his buddies. But he won't
>> do it for the conspiracy believers because he can't censor a GIF. Or
>> rather he doesn't know HOW to censor a GIF.
>>
>
> I keep telling you you can can post graphics. Just attach them to a
> post.
>
> You keep ignorning what I said, and keep insisting it's not possible.
>
> Are you so entranced with believing what you believe that you don't
> want to know the truth?
>
> Try it.
>

Yeah, I just tried it.

> Make a post with a graphic image attached.
>

Your server rejected my attachment.

Remember back in the Dark Ages when we used to upload the files to
alt.binary.pictures? I can no longer do that because Comcast dropped ALL
newsgroups. And don't rely on Photobucket. They are pathetic.

[John McAdams]

On 6 May 2014 23:06:15 -0400, Anthony Marsh

<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 5/6/2014 5:48 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 6 May 2014 17:44:55 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> You keep ignorning what I said, and keep insisting it's not possible.
>>
>> Are you so entranced with believing what you believe that you don't
>> want to know the truth?
>>
>> Try it.
>>
>
>Yeah, I just tried it.
>
>> Make a post with a graphic image attached.
>>
>
>Your server rejected my attachment.
>

How large was it?

I'll attach an image to this to show you how it's possible.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Bill Clarke]

In article <536960f7$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

The way you "read" NSAM 263 doesn't bode well for reading your documents.

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/6/2014 11:09 PM, John McAdams wrote:

You make the same error as Itek. You can't measure from the BACK of one
object to the front of another. All you are doing is showing how much
frame 313 is blurred. David Wimp covered this in his lecture and even Tink
admitted that was the mistake he himself made.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/6/2014 11:09 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 6 May 2014 23:06:15 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/6/2014 5:48 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 6 May 2014 17:44:55 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> You keep ignorning what I said, and keep insisting it's not possible.
>>>
>>> Are you so entranced with believing what you believe that you don't
>>> want to know the truth?
>>>
>>> Try it.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, I just tried it.
>>
>>> Make a post with a graphic image attached.
>>>
>>
>> Your server rejected my attachment.
>>
>
> How large was it?
>

1.5 M.
The error message said the limit is 1000000 bytes.
It's called throttling.

> I'll attach an image to this to show you how it's possible.
>

Yeah, make sure you use very lo res images.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 5/6/14 11:09 PM, John McAdams wrote:


Ha!
Great choice, John!

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

With the Power of Skype, online arguments are a reality. Who shall
moderate, let alone separate the emotions from the issues that lie before
us??

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

JFK regretted Diem's death, not his overthrow.

The documents don't mean diddly if the situation changes. The documents
show that LBJ never intended to have 500,000 US troops in Vietnam either.

For some reason you think the situation was going to stay the same
throughout JFK's presidency. He believed, as he repeatedly stated, that if
S.Vietnam fell all of Southeast Asia would fall, i.e, the Domino Theory.

No president making such statements could turn around and just pull all of
our combat troops out. And without those troops the South Vietnamese
government couldn't fight off the North.

In any case, we're getting far afield from the key point: that is, JFK was
not some sort of transformative president who threatened the military
industrial complex or the CIA and they, in retaliation, killed him.

It's not your thesis, I know. It's the main thesis of the conspiracy
crowd.

The "yapping poodle" reference was a joke. I apologize that you took it
personally. It wasn't intended that way but I still apologize for it.

[Mike]

Tink is confused by David Wimp's presentation and he over-reacted to it.

He totally changed the direction of the shot from the rear to from the
front.

Tink also mis-interprets the "mist" above the presidents head in frame
313.

The photographic evidence (and other evidence ) support that the shot that
struck JFK on frame 313 actually struck the TOP of the Presidents head.
That is the reason there is little forward movement of the head. The
Presidents head "bobs" down in resonse to that strike to the Top of his
head.

JFK was struck by two shots to the head, in 5 zapruder frames.

First you will see a downward "bob" and then a leftward push.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/ViucNI7tFp61nYiB44UpBMqF_CHPjZFGUnl9WUP_i5I=w720-h480-no

[FELIX LEITER]

David Wimp is that a pseudonym for Anthony Marsh? It should be.

[FELIX LEITER]

Diugenio reminds me of a midget version of Mark Ruffalo (The Hulk in THE
AVENGERS) with the voice of Arnold the Paperboy from the Flintstones.

[Anthony Marsh]

The argument is not about what was actually done. It is about what JFK
planned to do. NSAM make it clear that JFK intended to bring American
troops home.

> For some reason you think the situation was going to stay the same
> throughout JFK's presidency. He believed, as he repeatedly stated, that if
> S.Vietnam fell all of Southeast Asia would fall, i.e, the Domino Theory.
>

Never. I never said it would go as planned. All I can do is tell you
what the plan was.

> No president making such statements could turn around and just pull all of
> our combat troops out. And without those troops the South Vietnamese
> government couldn't fight off the North.
>

You could say the same think about Iraq, but the Obama brought home the
troops.

> In any case, we're getting far afield from the key point: that is, JFK was
> not some sort of transformative president who threatened the military
> industrial complex or the CIA and they, in retaliation, killed him.
>

Ending the Vietnam War would be a huge loss of profits for the Military
Industrial Complex.

Stop trying to pin conspiracy theories on me. I don't believe the
Military Industrial Complex assassinated Kennedy. Nor was it an official
CIA project.

[cmikes]

Well, it was naive of JFK to expect a coup in a third world country
without the deposed leader being killed, no matter what assurances he had
been given.

> The documents don't mean diddly if the situation changes. The documents
>
> show that LBJ never intended to have 500,000 US troops in Vietnam either.
>

And we all know that once a government makes a decision, that decision is
set in stone and never changes depending on circumstance. Yes, that's
sarcasm.

>
> For some reason you think the situation was going to stay the same
>
> throughout JFK's presidency. He believed, as he repeatedly stated, that if
>
> S.Vietnam fell all of Southeast Asia would fall, i.e, the Domino Theory.
>
>
>
> No president making such statements could turn around and just pull all of
>
> our combat troops out. And without those troops the South Vietnamese
>
> government couldn't fight off the North.
>

After the disastrous conference with Khrushchev in 1961, and the Soviets
getting everything they wanted during the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK said
that they had to look tough somewhere in the world, and it looked like
Vietnam was the place. Would JFK had decided to make Vietnam such a high
priority if he hadn't been getting trounced by the Soviets at every turn?
It's impossible to say, but the decision was made that Vietnam was where
the US was going to make its stand, one way or the other.

>
> In any case, we're getting far afield from the key point: that is, JFK was
>
> not some sort of transformative president who threatened the military
>
> industrial complex or the CIA and they, in retaliation, killed him.
>
>
>
> It's not your thesis, I know. It's the main thesis of the conspiracy
>
> crowd.
>

JFK's anti-Communist credentials went way back. He was an ally of Joe
McCarthy in the Senate, and deliberately scheduled long needed back
surgery so he could avoid a vote on McCarthy's censure by the Senate.
Even if he "evolved" somewhat in the years afterwards, he was still
nowhere close to joining the Progressive wing of the Democrat party.

[Anthony Marsh]

BUt he broke tank with McCarthy when he went too far.

> Even if he "evolved" somewhat in the years afterwards, he was still
> nowhere close to joining the Progressive wing of the Democrat party.
>

Again you fail to read what Kennedy actually said. He accepted the
endorsement of the Liberal Party and was proud to call himself a Liberal.
We've been over this thousands of times but you extreme rightwingers never
pay attention and keep pushing your revisionist crap.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <536b2c5c$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Yes, As the Vietnamese became trained to take over the war. And not ALL
of the troops.

>> For some reason you think the situation was going to stay the same
>> throughout JFK's presidency. He believed, as he repeatedly stated, that if
>> S.Vietnam fell all of Southeast Asia would fall, i.e, the Domino Theory.
>>
>
>Never. I never said it would go as planned. All I can do is tell you
>what the plan was.

Well Marsh, so far you have been unable to completely and factually tell
us what the plan was. It isn't that you don't know what the plan was.
It is the complete and factual part that gets you here.

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

More misrepresentation. I did. It's called the McNamara-Taylor report
and that is what JFK endorsed in NSAM 263. I was the one who put it
online. You had not read it before.
Go crawl back under your rock.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <5372...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

No, JFK didn't endorse the complete report, he endorsed Section I B (1-3)
of the report. And you can't quote this part correctly.

[Anthony Marsh]

So you claim. Tell us exactly what JFK did not endorse.
And I cut and pasted it perfectly.

[Bud]

You`re the one trying to glue dove feathers on a hawk.

[FELIX LEITER]

Marsh, your cut and pasting skills are extraordinary.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <5375...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Try this cut and paste.

Title: Re: How Would The Last 50 Years Have Changed If JFK Had Survived
Author: Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net>
Date: 22 Nov 2013 21:50:38 -0500
Message-ID: <528fcfdc$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>

We already did. He approved NSAM 263 which set the timetable for the
withdrawal of all US troops by the end of 1965.